Reading Comprehension

PT142 · S3 · P3 · Q19 Neuroscience & Criminal-Justice

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Passage A

Passage A Passage B

Topic neuroscience neuroscience free will vs. free will vs. determinism determinism crime sentences

Main if humans have yes, all actions are Point no free will, determined, but then retribution the ones caused by is dumb. Focus you are free, the on prevention. ones caused by external are constrained

Topic

How neuroscience and philosophy are shaping the debate over free will, determinism, and legal responsibility.

Framework

Present Debate

Main Point

Both passages discuss how recent neuroscience challenges traditional ideas about free will and responsibility, especially in the context of the law. Passage A argues for reconsidering punishment based on our understanding of the brain's role in behavior, while Passage B presents a philosophical defense (Ayer's "soft determinism") for the compatibility of determinism and free will. - (Passage A, first sentence) - (Passage B, third paragraph)

P1: Passage A – Neuroscience Challenges Law and Retribution

This paragraph opens by saying that neuroscience sees us as nothing more than our brains, and our behavior as entirely caused by brain activity. Because of this, it calls into question traditional legal ideas about free will and responsibility. The author suggests that the idea of punishing people simply because they "chose" to do wrong is flawed, since many of our apparently free decisions might actually be dictated by factors out of our control. The passage advocates shifting legal focus from retribution to deterring future harm, and even hints that this might lead to lighter sentences.

P1: Passage B – Determinism vs. Free Will

This paragraph begins by acknowledging that neuroscience is making the case for determinism—suggesting our actions are caused by the brain and thus not truly "free." Despite this, it notes that philosophers have long argued that free will can coexist with determinism.

19.

One purpose of the reference by the author of passage B to David Hume (second sentence of second paragraph of passage B) is to

  1. characterize Ayer as someone who

    Wrong Point of View

    The author is implicitly a fan of Ayer, since she presents his view and never pushes back against any of it. She is not bringing up Hume in order to slam Ayer as a derivative hack who's never had an original thought in his life.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    add credence to the theory

    Why this is right

    This isn't an answer I'd feel great about on a first pass. It doesn't feel like the author has a specific agenda to help out the respectability of soft determinism. But the reference to Hume, along with how it reinforces the claim of "it has long been argue that free will can coexist with determinism" does add some credence to Ayer's view. It almost feels like LSAT made the question stem weird "One purpose" out of guilt that it wrote a weird correct answer.

    Skill tested: Local Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    88% picked this

  3. suggest that the theory of

    Too Strong: primarily

    We don't have any indication that the #1 reason the author wants to talk about soft determinism is its importance in history, not its current relevance. To the contrary, the author brings up soft determinism as a response to current neuroscience. She thinks that Ayer's view is of current relevance to how we think about the picture of free will (or lack thereof) that neuroscience provides.

    2% picked this

  4. suggest that the theory of

    Too Strong: as long as

    The author isn't being specific enough for us to say that soft determinism has equal longevity to determinism (mechanistic descriptions).

    4% picked this

  5. add intellectual respectability to the

    Weaker Match

    The mention of Hume does add some intellectual respectability, just as the correct answer implies. But Ayer's view is not that "the brain shouldn't be described mechanistically". His view is that "even if the brain mechanistically controls our actions, we can still distinguish between free (internally caused) and constrained (externally caused) actions".

    5% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free